‹ First  < 33 34 35 36 37 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Pro-life Atheists

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14008
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
11 January 2009 08:34
 
Nulono - 11 January 2009 07:00 AM
burt - 11 January 2009 01:44 AM

Nobody agrees with you—doesn’t that indicate something

No it doesn’t.

Well, I guess you are just a voice in the wilderness.  Just like the old Hebrew prophets, except you don’t have Big Sky Daddy to back you up.  Tough being the only person who really knows what’s what.  Must really feed your martyr complex.

 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 09:11
 

Many people do actually agree with me, just not on this forum. An ad populum argument is not going to get you anywhere anyway, as it is fallacious by nature.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
11 January 2009 10:43
 
Nulono - 11 January 2009 02:11 PM

Many people do actually agree with me, just not on this forum. An ad populum argument is not going to get you anywhere anyway, as it is fallacious by nature.

How nice for you that your fellow pedophiles agree with you. Along with libertarian and ‘pro-life’ religious nutjobs. You can state that an embryo is an “entity” with legal or natural rights, and do it, as you have done, without arguing the point, but rather by pointing out that other people (similarly incapable of arguing the point) agree with you (and what is that but ad populam?) That upon which you and they agree most clearly is on a disrespect for or even hatred of women, the only human demographic on the planet to whom you wish to deny rights. What’s frightening about your particular insanity is that your political philosophy denies protection to anyone except embryos and those who can hire their own private armies. Well, that’s Objectivism for ya.

Your position as revealed by your postings elsewhere indicates a disposition toward minimal restriction on consensual behavior, and toward making that the highest objective of a political philosophy. If you scratch its surface, the details are deeply misogynistic and patriarchal. You could be a Muslim fundie except for substituting infantile, grandiose selfhood for the religious commandment. You can leave the word GOD out of your discourse, but that doesn’t mean that you aren’t a religious nut.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 10:49 by Traces Elk]
 
 
Giova
 
Avatar
 
 
Giova
Total Posts:  47
Joined  24-12-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 10:58
 
Nulono - 11 January 2009 02:11 PM

An ad populum argument

For constantly saying the word “Ad this” or “Argumentum that” you deserve to have a pile of hay shoved up your ass. It’s become your sole rebuttal. There are better ways of arguing than constantly recycling dictionary definitions of Latinate informal fallacies: everyone just gets more annoyed reading a post where every other post is nothing but “Nah ah. Argumentum ad ________!!!.” You just make yourself look like more of a moron. Hurray, you read nizkor.org! Have ten thousand Internet points!

 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 11:17
 

1: I am not against women. I am a feminist.
2: I am not a pedophile.
3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.
4: Fallacious arguments do not deserve reply such as you demand. You’re trying to use the fact that my opponents’ arguments are riddled with logical fallacies against me?
5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
11 January 2009 11:18
 
Nulono - 09 January 2009 03:04 PM

But “harm” is not qualified, so it could apply to both. If I hire you to babysit my 2 children, and tell you not to cause harm, you mustn’t harm my daughter, or my son, or my television.

If you harmed my daughter, you can’t say “I thought ‘harm’ only applied to your son, because you didn’t list all the entities to which harm was forbidden.”.

If the noun “harm” is not qualified, it defalts to ANY harm; harm to the child is harm, harm to the mother is harm, and harm to both is harm.

Nor is “harm” qualified by attempting to convince people that you can decide the presence or absence of harm in any example without first defining it. The way you use the word, it is simply any action that your philosophy wishes to prevent.

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions. Your philosophy makes choices about the priorities of certain “rights”, but does not spell out how those priorities are determined. Your stipulations are always arbitrary, since you do not define “harm” except as harm is done to your ideology.

So this is how Objectivism handles it. Ultimate liberty and freedom of conscience except for those actions it wishes to prohibit. Still doesn’t define what “harm” is except as “anything that damages the ideology of Objectivism”. Ooh la la, as they used to say in France during the Reign of Terror.

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

Deny it if you like. You would like to be free to have sex with children. What you are also, incontrovertibly, is a buttwick dickweed internet troll. As well as a pedophile.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 11:28 by Traces Elk]
 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 11:34
 
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

Deny it if you like. You would like to be free to have sex with children. What you are also, incontrovertibly, is a buttwick dickweed internet troll. As well as a pedophile.

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

Oh, BTW, Objectivism is about agression (the initiation of force), not harm.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 11:40 by Nulono]
 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
11 January 2009 11:57
 
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

Deny it if you like. You would like to be free to have sex with children. What you are also, incontrovertibly, is a buttwick dickweed internet troll. As well as a pedophile.

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

Oh, BTW, Objectivism is about agression (the initiation of force), not harm.

The point is to explain how the initiation of force causes harm. The point is to explain how your philosophy makes the choices it does, rather than simply to assert that the initiation of force is rejected. A position on the initiation of force cannot be an axiom, but a consequence of the axioms of Objectivism.

If you make children free to make their own sexual choices it can be generalized to making everyone free to make their own choices in the absence of complete information. Making choices with incomplete information is necessary, and is the definition of risk. You need to explain your axioms with respect to the concept of risk, and whether you believe information is a commodity.

In fact, one does not need a private army, sensu strictu. One needs a private army of information-gatherers.

In any event, that is one of the ways that Objectivism self-destructs. It stresses liberty by avoiding initiation of force rather than liberty through the availability of information. The a priori obligation to disclose information is seen as an initiation of force, isn’t it?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Men and women are autonomous decision-making entities and embryos are not. Rape is prohibited because it abridges the autonomy of a decision-making entity. Prohibiting abortion in all cases abridges the autonomy of a decision-making entity. The cases in which abortion is prohibited must address the decision-making capability of the woman seeking an abortion, and must address the specifics of each individual decision. M is for Malapert has addressed many of those considerations in this very thread.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 12:08 by Traces Elk]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15257
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 12:01
 
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

They weren’t free to decide if they wanted to be born or not, you made that decision for them! They come into the world ignorant and helpless, totally dependent on their parents, and want do you tell them, make your own fucking choices!  Do the world a favor and never have children.

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 13:20
 
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:57 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

Deny it if you like. You would like to be free to have sex with children. What you are also, incontrovertibly, is a buttwick dickweed internet troll. As well as a pedophile.

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

Oh, BTW, Objectivism is about agression (the initiation of force), not harm.

The point is to explain how the initiation of force causes harm. The point is to explain how your philosophy makes the choices it does, rather than simply to assert that the initiation of force is rejected. A position on the initiation of force cannot be an axiom, but a consequence of the axioms of Objectivism.

If you make children free to make their own sexual choices it can be generalized to making everyone free to make their own choices in the absence of complete information. Making choices with incomplete information is necessary, and is the definition of risk. You need to explain your axioms with respect to the concept of risk, and whether you believe information is a commodity.

In fact, one does not need a private army, sensu strictu. One needs a private army of information-gatherers.

In any event, that is one of the ways that Objectivism self-destructs. It stresses liberty by avoiding initiation of force rather than liberty through the availability of information. The a priori obligation to disclose information is seen as an initiation of force, isn’t it?

Objectivism is not based on harm; it is based on force. If I force you to eat a pineapple pizza, even if no harm comes frome it, I have committed a wrongful deed.

It is relativism that is self-defeating. A relativist would claim that I mus no force my personal opinion on others, but who is he to force his personal opinion (relativism) on me?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Men and women are autonomous decision-making entities and embryos are not. Rape is prohibited because it abridges the autonomy of a decision-making entity. Prohibiting abortion in all cases abridges the autonomy of a decision-making entity. The cases in which abortion is prohibited must address the decision-making capability of the woman seeking an abortion, and must address the specifics of each individual decision. M is for Malapert has addressed many of those considerations in this very thread.

What if I rape you when you’re in a coma?
Furthermore, newborns are not autonomous decision-making entities. May I kill a neonate?

GAD - 11 January 2009 05:01 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

They weren’t free to decide if they wanted to be born or not, you made that decision for them! They come into the world ignorant and helpless, totally dependent on their parents, and want do you tell them, make your own fucking choices!  Do the world a favor and never have children.

Come again?

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 13:43 by Nulono]
 
 
zelzo
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  2006
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
11 January 2009 14:38
 

nulono

Cheating on one’s spouse is not immoral.

I tend to use “immoral” when referring to heinous acts like rape, murder, child abuse,  corruption, etc….

I would classify infidelity as unethical since it involves, deceit, manipulation and lying.

Unless you have an “open” relationship that is consensual.

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 15:09
 
lindajean - 11 January 2009 07:38 PM

Unless you have an “open” relationship that is consensual.

That’s what I was referring to. Deceit is only immoral when it is used to acheive a desired outcome (lying about the contents of a food, ofr instance). I’d have to think about it, but if the man is cheating on the woman and says he isn’t to keep her liking him… yes, that would be immoral. I would see no qualm with criminalizing it. Just like I would not let you rape your daughter (even though sexual relatiopnships and what happen in your own house are typically private).

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14008
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
11 January 2009 15:09
 
Nulono - 11 January 2009 06:20 PM

.
It is relativism that is self-defeating. A relativist would claim that I mus no force my personal opinion on others, but who is he to force his personal opinion (relativism) on me?

Relativism is self-defeating.  I don’t accept the idea that all views are equal, that is your projection.  But there are very strict criteria for deciding between different views, some of them involving repeatable experiments, logical coherence, and so on.  You have not satisfied any of these criteria to my satisfaction, and seem rather to simply restate your opinion. 

Also, I have never tried to force my opinion on you, telling you that your belief is is not, in my view, a valid opinion is not force, it is simply telling you that you are full of it.  You can respond however you like, and certainly are not required to change your opinion.  You might say that because abortion is legal that forces an opinion on you, but it does not.  You are free not to have any abortions, and to hold your opinion, and express it.  All you have to do is accept that this will get you dumped on royally in a forum such as this.  If you want agreement, go elsewhere and join a circle jerk. 

The Non Sequitur cartoon strip in today’s funnies seems to give an excellent description of how you have been behaving in these discussions.  It is a dialogue between two cave men, one inside the cave and the other standing out in the rain.  Let’s call them Grok (in the cave) and Grog (out in the rain):

Grok: Why you stand in rain
Grog: It not raining
Grok: yes it is
Grog: No it not
Grok: Water fall from sky. That rain.
Grog: That your opinion
Grok: Not opinion. Fact.  See raindrops.
Grog: Don’t need to look. Already know it not raining.
Grok: If it not raining why you wet and me dry?
Grog: (after long hesitation) Define wet.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15257
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 15:41
 
burt - 11 January 2009 08:09 PM

Relativism is self-defeating.  I don’t accept the idea that all views are equal, that is your projection.  But there are very strict criteria for deciding between different views, some of them involving repeatable experiments, logical coherence, and so on.  You have not satisfied any of these criteria to my satisfaction, and seem rather to simply restate your opinion.

That’s one view of Relativism but not the only one. In my view Relativism does not mean that all views are equal, or preclude a best possible view, only that your view is relative to what you know/understand. What’s the alternative, Absolutism, that’s absolutely wrong. smile

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 15:42
 

Ah, yes, but laws against rape (Keep your laws off my penis!) and murder do force an opinion on people. That does not make it rape good.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 16:14 by Nulono]
 
 
‹ First  < 33 34 35 36 37 >  Last ›